Theos-Talk Archives (April 2004 Message tt00635)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@s...> wrote:


> Ali Hassan wrote:


> > Excellent points. However, your own insistence that she was a 
con(jurer) 


> > artist sort of negates that point, no? ( Unless you're just 
playing devil's 


> > advocate without a presupposition) There are some qualities that 
just don't 


> > mesh. Such as a 'great teacher' stooping to falsified phenomena ( 
data).


> > Anathema in scientific circles.


> 




> It is my contention that she had a real message to give, and 
used 


> phenomena to attract attention, at least some of which i believe was 


> faked. In addition, I believe that, real or faked, it was a mistake 
to 


> use such phenomena, and, however it helped in the short run, worked 


> ultimately to her detriment in the long run. I find a major saving 
grace 


> that she treated such phenomena as being unimportant, and not part 
of 


> the teachings. And I believe that anybody who considers the genuity 
of 


> the phenomena to be required to believe the teachings misses her 
point 


> entirely.




I agree with this part. I disagree with your initial contention that 
it was a mistake. Yes, it's showmanship- somewhere in the New 
Testament, Jesus is also quoted wearily, almost complainingly that 
"barring the giving of signs and wonders, they will not believe."


So, call it "dumbing down" the message, but then consider the 
audience they have to contend with.


Finally, there is the implication and demonstration by the Masters 
that genuine phenomenalization and materialization are "potential" 
qualities of the will of man. Not as an end to achieve, but a "sign".






> Both Blavatsky and the Mahatmas pointed out that argument from 


> authority is a logical fallacy; that we are to believe or disbelieve 


> their teachings, not based on who they came from, but on our own 


> knowledge, belief and logic regarding the teachings themselves. So I 
do 


> that. This includes, for example, if one interpretation of the 
teachings 


> violate that which has been measured, see if another interpretation 
does 


> fit in. Those who consider Blavatsky and the Mahatmas to be 
infallible 


> often do not differentiate between what they actually wrote and 
their 


> interpretation of what they actually wrote.




Yes, it's good to be analytical. I think they pointed out that the 
tenor of the new age ( even if they didn't put it in so many words) 
was to be a "knower rather than a believer". However, they are talking 
about more than just intellectual knowledge and sensory data all in 
accord. 


They view the science of the senses as being the "lowest on the 
chain" of knowledge, imo- and necessarily having to harmonize with the 
higher which they are more familiar with than the average theosophist.







> A good example is the passage in the Mahatma Letters denying 
the 


> existence of potential energy. Some deny the existence of potential 


> energy based on this letter. But, on careful reading of the letter, 
it 


> is clear that what the Mahatmas call "potential energy" and what 


> scientists, even of the time, call "potential energy", are two 
different 


> things. So let's look at two possibilities: All the experiments are 


> wrong, and there is no such thing as potential energy, OR, Sinnett 
wrote 


> to them describing a term "potential energy", giving the wrong 


> description, and the Mahatmas just assumed that his description of 
the 


> term was correct. Based what was written, the latter is FAR more 
likely, 


> yet you have many Theosophists who firmly believe, against all 
physical 


> evidence, in the former.


> 


> Bart




That sounds really like splitting hairs. So much energy is spent doing 
that in forums like these.....do you think the Mahatmas might have 
known in advance how much potential hair-splitting energy that would 
be expended in the future by students 'studying' their acts, 
statements.....and where does all the hair-splitting energy go?


Does it create new, neurotic universes that quickly flame out?




regards-




Ali